Ken Russell: The forgotten man of British cinema?
A director known for controversial, provocative works, Ken Russell, the filmmaker behind 1971’s The Devils and 1980’s Altered States, spent his 40-year career making movies that challenged audiences and critics across his works, using a blend of surrealism, religious themes, and sexuality to push the boundaries of filmmaking, and creative visually striking, often extravagant stories, brimming with dramatic lighting and colourful sets.
The director favoured a heightened form of reality in his films, reflecting his love of the arts, music and history. In The Devils, his use of brutalist sets and claustrophobic close-ups helped convey the hysteria of his film, which aimed to challenge conventional ideas surrounding religious institutions and politics. The film would be an early example of Russell’s frequent encounters with censorship. His adaptation of the Aldous Huxley book The Devils of Loudun focused on the real-life events of 17th century France, in which a group of nuns climbed to be possessed and sparked public hysteria spearheaded by the church.
The film’s graphic violence and depictions of torture, along with the graphic sexual content, were deemed deeply offensive by religious groups at the time due to the infamous ‘rape of Christ’ scene. The Devils saw widespread calls for cuts and censorship, with both the British Board of Film Certification and the film’s distributors, Warner Brothers, heavily editing the release, with the film remaining controversial even after the removal of some of the more intensely difficult scenes.
In Altered States, a science fiction film depicting the limits of human consciousness through the use of hallucinogenic drugs, the director clashed with the film’s writer over differences over how to handle dialogue and narrative with the scriptwriter Paddy Chayefsky, becoming frustrated with Russell’s surreal and flamboyant approach.
These bouts of censorship and creative clashes plagued Russell throughout his career as he continued to challenge moral boundaries that incited public and critical backlash.
This exploration of taboo is perhaps why the director feels alienated from the British film community and industry. “All my films but one have been financed by Americans,” Russell said of his feeling towards the perceived lack of appreciation he felt from his homeland. Despite a number of his films being made in the UK, Russell still felt as though he wasn’t held in the same world as the output of his contemporaries; he would say: “I don’t really consider myself part of the industry here”.
Whether it was his controversial subject matter or eccentric creativity that caused the friction between him and the production studios of Britain at the time, and despite feeling as though he was the “forgotten man of British film” that he claimed to be, Russell’s legacy is one of a boundary-pushing, pioneering director whose work has left an indelible mark on the landscape of British cinema, whether he considers himself part of it or not.
